I use to be a huge Halo 3 fan, then I played COD4 and whenever I go back to play Halo 3 the framerate seems so slow and clunky that I can't get into it any more. Has anyone else noticed this who plays these 2 games. I don't know if I can get back on board the H3 train after this.:eek:

Umm, yes, Halo 3's framerate is half of CoD4's. But Halo 3 has more special effects and a slightly higher resolution.

Bungie can design a hell of a game... but their engine... not too impressive on Xbox 1 or 360.

I agree with the original poster, that Halo 3 feels very sub-standard in terms of frame rate, which is bizarre, since it's basically "Halo 2 with shinier textures". I feel the graphical effects and general look are a heck of a lot better in Call of Duty 4, even though it is rendered at a slightly lower resolution.

The only explanation I can come up with for Halo 3 is, because it supports multiple players split-screen, it has to leave more processing power available for when more than one person is playing.

^ Very true I did not think about that, I would like to see some split screen with the next COD game it makes it more of a party game.

CoD4 runs at 60fps, Halo 3 runs at 30fps. It's not really running "substandard", 30fps is still what most games this generation run at. Though 60fps is certainly very nice when we can get it.

What are the framerates for both games?

I haven't played CoD4 in months since my Halo 3 league started but now I am curious. I'll try it out today when I get home.

When I was playing both, a lot, a few months ago, the reasons I hated going back and forth between games is 1) reloading and 2) sprinting. :D

EDIT: Ops. Didn't see the post above. Thanks.

I agree with the original poster, that Halo 3 feels very sub-standard in terms of frame rate, which is bizarre, since it's basically "Halo 2 with shinier textures".Except it isn't.

I noticed the exact same thing between COD4 and Halo3. COD4 is much smoother.

cod4 framerate is like a fine silky gravy, Halo 3's is like a chunky marinara sauce. Kthanksby

Halo 3 runs smooth but it definitely isnt as silky as COD4. I still love the "Feel" of Halo 3, just as I do for COD4. They are both unique, distintcly different, and both great IMO.

I haven't touched halo 3 since I purchased cod4.. There is more of a chance that I will beat down old people with my big plastic chief helmet than play the actual game.

They need to release halo 1 with updated graphics and online multi.. I'd pay 50$ for that.

They need to release halo 1 with updated graphics and online multi.. I'd pay 50$ for that.

+1

I think 1 and 2 ran at 30 fps, and if they changed it to 60 fps in 3, I feel like that would change the feel of the game too much. I love CoD4, but it's a different game from Halo. And the fact that you can have 4 players on live per console really does make it worth it imo.

I feel like Halo 3 was built to be the ultimate party shooter in the same way that the first 2 were (with lan parties especially), and I think they did a great job at that.

They need to release halo 1 with updated graphics and online multi.. I'd pay 50$ for that.

and four player co-op.

I think 1 and 2 ran at 30 fps, and if they changed it to 60 fps in 3

Halo 3 is 30fps (most of the time), COD4 is 60fps (most of the time).

I thought the human eye can't even distinguish anything above 30fps that's why MPEG (Motion Picture Expert Group) made all broadcasts in 30fps which is full motion video. What is the purpose for anything higher? Or am I wrong?

60 fps would be horrible for Halo.

60 fps would be horrible for Halo.

Why? I went back to playing some Halo 3 last night after finishing my 1st prestige, and I definitely agree with the OP. Until you've played COD4 consistently for a few months after playing Halo 3 for awhile, you dont really realize it, but there is a drastically different feel to Halo 3 than COD4, and its framerate is much slower. I think Whiskey said it best, COD4 is silky fine gravy while Halo 3 is chunky marinara sauce.

I used to be so good at Halo but for some reason it takes so much time it seems to get your aiming precise. Oh well.

mdntblu, I dont know what the standards are, but you can definitely see and feel a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps

I think this frame rate issue is really hurting Bungie. People are saying they are dissappointed with halo 3 because it feels like halo 2.5 and I think the main reason is the frame rate! It just doesn't feel and run (for lack of a better word) like its a next gen game. At least when we look at the "competition" wink wink

I think Whiskey said it best, COD4 is silky fine gravy while Halo 3 is chunky marinara sauce.I think the former comparison is apt, and the latter is hyperbolic nonsense.

I'll admit readily that Halo 3 has a few performance issues, especially in a few of the larger environs. And the short framerate stutters detract from those few segments and leave the player (this one included) somewhat underwhelmed. But for most of the game, whether you're driving a vehicle or doing a corridor-run or traipsing through the initial jungle level, the framerate is very solid and steady at 30fps and the visuals are still very nice.

That said, there's no question that I'd prefer to play more 60fps games like COD4. Given all the stink about how Halo 3 wasn't running at 720p, and how nobody complained about COD4 at 600p, I wonder if Bungie should've just done the game at 600p like Infinity Ward, and maybe traded the high dynamic range effects for a more finely tuned lighting approach. It wasn't like their critics were going to be kind, either way...

mdntblu, I dont know what the standards are, but you can definitely see and feel a difference between 30 fps and 60 fpsYup. The old NTSC signal is technically 30 frames per second, but with two fields per frame, and the refresh rate of the TV at 60hz, you're getting a lot smoother looking motion. Then there's 1080i which works on the same principle and 720p60 and ... crud, I gotta lie down.

Bottom line is you're correct, we definitely can tell the diff between 30fps and 60fps.

I think the former comparison is apt, and the latter is hyperbolic nonsense.

I'll admit readily that Halo 3 has a few performance issues, especially in a few of the larger environs. And the short framerate stutters detract from those few segments and leave the player (this one included) somewhat underwhelmed. But for most of the game, whether you're driving a vehicle or doing a corridor-run or traipsing through the initial jungle level, the framerate is very solid and steady at 30fps and the visuals are still very nice.

Oh I agree, overall Halo 3 is a very solid well performing game, and the framerate, even though it appears a lot of us are complaining, really isnt bad at all. I was happy with the graphics and environments as well. Truth is if I just played it consistently for a few nights it would seem normal again. However, strictly speaking from a comparison between COD4, its definitely lacking. I was a Halo 3 junky who finally was convinced to try COD4....and after being addicted to it for 3 months and finally going back to H3, I really saw the difference.

I think this frame rate issue is really hurting Bungie. People are saying they are dissappointed with halo 3 because it feels like halo 2.5 and I think the main reason is the frame rate! It just doesn't feel and run (for lack of a better word) like its a next gen game. At least when we look at the "competition" wink wink

CoD4's engine isn't very advanced, though. IW did a great job with it, but its running at a lower resolution than Halo 3, lacks the scale of Halo 3, and lacks special effects of Halo 3.

Maybe Bungie made the wrong call in choosing to emphasize special effects and scale instead of framerate. But it's a question every developer is asking themselves right now, and still most are choosing to go with 30fps + more effects. It's not like every game is 60fps except Halo 3. Most are still 30fps.

I think the former comparison is apt, and the latter is hyperbolic nonsense.


I never said I don't like chunky marinara sauce

CoD4's engine isn't very advanced, though. IW did a great job with it, but its running at a lower resolution than Halo 3, lacks the scale of Halo 3, and lacks special effects of Halo 3.

Maybe Bungie made the wrong call in choosing to emphasize special effects and scale instead of framerate. But it's a question every developer is asking themselves right now, and still most are choosing to go with 30fps + more effects. It's not like every game is 60fps except Halo 3. Most are still 30fps.

I think multiplayer is really where it becomes tricky. I personally am glad bungie went with larger environments and slower frame rate from a single player standpoint, because man were some of those levels epic, large and tons of eye candy to look at. However, multiplayer is where a fast frame rate really can enhance the experience, and IW really made a genius call to use a lot of the environments from their campaign and put them straight into the MP. Its a risky decision but I think its safe to say they made the correct one. I can play most of the levels in COD4 over and over again and not think they get old.

If Halo 3 could mantian a solid 30fps it wouldn't be so bad, the big problem is that it often can't and drops to 20fps instead, which is just awful.

I thought the human eye can't even distinguish anything above 30fps that's why MPEG (Motion Picture Expert Group) made all broadcasts in 30fps which is full motion video. What is the purpose for anything higher? Or am I wrong?


The purpose is that it makes a big difference videogames. This is not the motion picture industry where they get away with having a low frame per second for artistry sake and to save money on inferior cameras.

24 fps is just the exact line where human eyes cant distinguish picture stills from full motion video but it doesnt mean we cant see anything higher.... which we can and thats why call of duty plays so much better.

so xboters....oops wrong one....

so xboters....oops wrong one....Nice knowing you, troll-bot.

"Yup. The old NTSC signal is technically 30 frames per second, but with two fields per frame, and the refresh rate of the TV at 60hz, you're getting a lot smoother looking motion. Then there's 1080i which works on the same principle and 720p60 and ... crud, I gotta lie down."

There is nothing "technically 30 frames per second" about 480i NTSC, unless the source is 30frame per second material. TV shows are overwhelmingly 60 frame per second items, with half of each frame thrown away to get a 60 field per second signal.

1080i is exactly the same way, just at higher resolutions.

60 fields does not equal 30 frames. If your statement were true, then deinterlacing TV based material would be really, really easy. In the real world, it is the most difficult thing to do.

I thought that 15fps was the minimum for perceiving motion?

Since reading this thread I've paid more attention to Halo 3 and can tell it's not running any faster than 30fps. In games like it it is nice to have the really deep view so that you can see enemy groups and pick them off from a good distance. On the other hand, sometimes it's just borderline obscene how far the view extends before the fog sets in.

What I'd like to see:
Regular gameplay - 60fps
Cinematics/cut scenes - 30fps

There is nothing "technically 30 frames per second" about 480i NTSC,Except that yes, in fact there is.

TV shows are overwhelmingly 60 frame per second items, with half of each frame thrown away to get a 60 field per second signal.I studied broadcasting in college and worked in the broadcast industry for some time. Never once did we ever work at 60 frames per second. All our editing equipment worked on a 29.97 fps. We did not work in fields, we worked in frames. Invariably.

NTSC TV is 60 *fields* per second, but fields <> frames. At 60hz, you get the practical effect of 60fps, but you still only have around 30 frames per second from your tape or broadcast source.

60 fields does not equal 30 frames.Actually it does.

If your statement were true, then deinterlacing TV based material would be really, really easy. In the real world, it is the most difficult thing to do.No.

"I studied broadcasting in college and worked in the broadcast industry for some time. Never once did we ever work at 60 frames per second. All our editing equipment worked on a 29.97 fps. We did not work in fields, we worked in frames. Invariably."

Oh great and wise one! Please explain to us lower class why deinterlacing video material isn't a simple matter of mushing field 1 and field 2 together to get a single solid frame! Please, I beg you for your knowledge!!!!1one

One can of course work with 30 frame per second material, and cram it into a 480i NTSC signal, just like one can take a 24 frame per second movie and cram it into that same 60hz NTSC. In both cases, deinterlacing is pretty freakin easy. One can also take higher than 30 frame per second material and cram it into an NTSC signal, and this is what is done for most TV shows. The video is shot at 60 frames a second, only 240 lines of each frame are used (or captured initially) and each frame ends up being an individual field in the resulting NTSC stream. Simple evidence? Take any two fields from a normal broadcast show. Interleave those two fields to make a single frame. Watch them not nicely match up, showing basic interlacing artifacts like feathering on horizontal pans or ghosting on vertical pans.

Life would be a lot easier in the current world that is transitioning from interlaced to progressive displays if what you are saying was true. As it is, I would call up your college if I were you and ask for your money back.

Oh great and wise one! Please explain to us lower class why deinterlacing video material isn't a simple matter of mushing field 1 and field 2 together to get a single solid frame! Please, I beg you for your knowledge!!!!1oneI think first I need to explain to certain users how to behave maturely in a public forum.

NTSC runs at 29.97 frames per second. Period. End of story. I surely won't be the only person here on AVS who will confirm this long-standing factoid.

Life would be a lot easier in the current world that is transitioning from interlaced to progressive displays if what you are saying was true. As it is, I would call up your college if I were you and ask for your money back.Reported.

This thread seems to have taken a new tangent so I'm gonna exploit it. :D

I'm rather new to the whole HD arena and am still learning. I understand that NTSC broadcasts are 29.97fps an are interlaced. Can someone explain to me exactly how and interlaced signal is turned into a progressive one? I ask because my TV is 1080p and would like to know how interlaced programs are turned into progressive.

I think first I need to explain to certain users how to behave maturely in a public forum.


Hey dub, not to be rude, but could you seriously take high and mighty attitude and leave it at the door? We all have bad days; you know the ones where you want to quit the job and get blasted at the bar or throw your barking dog through the window. Don't come in here and rip on people. This is an xbox forum. Your attitude is really condescending and rude. I mean, who needs someone like you running around with your nose in the air smacking people on the head with your hickory stick? What are you reporting this guy for? Having a different opinion than you regarding frame rates? LOL that's pretty funny actually.

dub273 - Nice dodging of the deinterlacing of 60 frame per second material issue. :)

Here, I'll go one step further. Let's take COD4 and it's silky smooth 60 frames per second video. Internaly the 360 renders each frame at 1024x600, 60 times a second. Now let's hook this 360 up to a normal 480i NTSC CRT and follow what happens to the video.

Frame #1 will be downscaled to 720x480, it's even lines will be set aside, and a 720x240 field is output to the display. The display of course follows it's 480i rules and takes those 240 lines and displays them "1, blank, 2, blank, 3, etc".

Frame #2 is ready. Well crap, we still have lines left over from the last frame. Oh well. Let's downscale this new frame to 720x480, set aside the odd lines, and send out a 720x240 field to the display. The display still follows it's rules and displays this field as "blank, 1, blank 2, blank, etc", interleaving the new field with the old one.

Two unique frames going into two unique fields. They do not match up to a single perfect frame if you try to deinterlace them, and half of the frames are not thrown away.

Again, if what you were saying was true, then half of the frames would be thrown away, and it would be impossible to tell the difference between a 30 frame per second source and a 60 frame per second source within the NTSC standard. Hook a 360 up to a CRT and throw in COD4 and Halo 3, and you can clearly see that COD4 runs more smoothly. Why? Because all 60 frames a second are being represented within that 60hz signal.

Wow, this thread has taken a turn for the worse. I think some people are confused on the difference between film which has a exposure time and motion blur and games which are single rendered frames. While film based material might look fine at 15, 20, 25fps - games will not look fluid for fast motion. Since TV are 60Hz, games are locked to something divisible into 60Hz, hence the reference to 30 and 60fps. When they cannot keep up they either drop to 20, 15, 12, etc. or v-sync is disabled and you see tearing. I think both COD4 and Halo 3 are v-sync enabled, so if Halo 3 cannot keep 30fps it will drop to 20fps (COD4 drops from 60 to 30).

dub273 - Nice dodging of the deinterlacing of 60 frame per second material issue. :)I'm not dodging it, it's simply irrelevant to the fact of the format. I'm well aware of the voodoo that happens to meld two fields to form a single frame, even if I'm more familiar with it in terms of the end-user result than the technology behind it.

But the fact remains. NTSC runs at 29.97 frames per second. Google, it, Wiki it, I don't care.

Again, if what you were saying was true, then half of the frames would be thrown away, and it would be impossible to tell the difference between a 30 frame per second source and a 60 frame per second source within the NTSC standard.It would not.

"I'm rather new to the whole HD arena and am still learning. I understand that NTSC broadcasts are 29.97fps an are interlaced. Can someone explain to me exactly how and interlaced signal is turned into a progressive one? I ask because my TV is 1080p and would like to know how interlaced programs are turned into progressive."

When speaking of NTSC, it helps to get rid of the "fps" abreviation as that can be taken to mean "frames per second" or "fields per second". :)

And no, NTSC broadcast are 59.94 fields per second, not 29.97 frames per second. Within those ~60 fields, you can have whatever framerate you want, from 1 to 60. That is why we can have movies at 24frames, local news at 30frames, old CG at 15frames, or primetime dramas at 60frames per second all within this same 60 field a second signal. That would of course be the crux of the arguement I am having with Dub.

At it's simplest, deinterlacing takes 2 fields, interleaves them, and displays them as a progressing image. With material that has a framerate that is equal to or less than half the field rate, full, essentially perfect frames can be rebuilt. For example, a 24 frame movie inside of a 60 field NTSC can have each half of a single frame identified and pasted together to rebuild that full frame.

When the framerate passes the halfway mark (30frame in this case) then you start to run into artifacting issues where you can no longer grab both halves of a single frame out of the 60 fields. Better deinterlacers handle that issue better. :)

To make your life easier and to always have good image quality, whenever possible pick the progressive image. In the case of COD4 for example, 720p will look better on a 1080p display than 1080i will. Only marginally though, as we are really only talking about 60 lines. :)

That is a whole other discussion though!

Additional: Dub - Why did I become sarcastic with you? Because your arguement has been essentailly "I'm smarter than you! Nah nah!", but backed up with no actual proof of that claim. :) If you're going to bust out with "I went to college!!!1", then you better have something to show that that means something in regard to the conversation at hand.

Dub - "NTSC runs at 29.97 frames per second"

James - "it would be impossible to tell the difference between a 30 frame per second source and a 60 frame per second source"

Dub - "It would not."

You do realize that your two statements in reference to my statement are mutally exclusive of eachother, right? Which one is it? NTSC is locked at 30 frames per second and below, or can show higher than 30 frames per second? Within a single carriage return you stated that higher than 30frames is impossible, but then that it is possible. :)

Additional: Dub - Why did I become sarcastic with you? Because your arguement has been essentailly "I'm smarter than you! Nah nah!", but backed up with no actual proof of that claim. :)NTSC is 29.97 frames per second.

NTSC is a color TV standard developed in the U.S. in 1953 by the National Television System Committee. NTSC uses a Frame consisting of 486 horizontal lines in the Active Area and a Framerate of 29.97fps. (http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/ntsc.cfm)

NTSC color encoding is used with the M format (see broadcast television systems), which consists of 30/100.1% (or approximately 29.97) interlaced frames of video per second. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC)

Short for National Television System Committee. The NTSC is responsible for setting television and video standards in the United States (in Europe and the rest of the world, the dominant television standards are PAL and SECAM). The NTSC standard for television defines a composite video signal with a refresh rate of 60 half-frames (interlaced) per second. Each frame contains 525 lines and can contain 16 million different colors. (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/N/NTSC.html)

NTSC is the video system or standard used in North America and most of South America. In NTSC, 30 frames are transmitted each second. Each frame is made up of 525 individual scan lines. (http://www.ihffilm.com/videostandard.html)

ATSC Standard Frames Per Second Variations: 29.97 (59.94 fields/s) / 30 (60 fields/s) (http://www.media.utah.edu/dvdworkshop/pdf/2E_DVD_TNG_ATSC.pdf)

I'm right on this and I'm backed up by years of techical specs and documentation.

If you're going to bust out with "I went to college!!!1", then you better have something to show that that means something in regard to the conversation at hand.And what backup have you "busted out" with, precisely?

You do realize that your two statements in reference to my statement are mutally exclusive of each other, right?You are an intelligent person and I believe fully that one day you will understand why, in fact, they are not mutually exclusive.

Interesting thread. Here's my understanding but would love to learn exactly how this works since it sounds like everyone is saying the same thing (to me). I am not a broadcast engineer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express a couple of weeks ago.

NTSC is 29.97 frames/sec. However, it's recorded at 59.94 fields/sec. The fields *are* different (due to motion of the subject) which makes deinterlacing non-trivial. The fact that it's displayed at 59.94 fields/sec in practice, (and the fields are different) leaves the 29.97 frames/sec as more of a definition of sorts that describes how often a full resolution frame is recorded and displayed. In reality, we get two fields every 1/29.97sec (one every 1/59.94 sec) which are half of a frame in resolution, but can't be easily reassembled into a full frame since the source is recorded at 59.94 fields/sec.

A little confusing.

Cary

Why are we talking about NTSC framerates? Almost none of the users here will be using the Xbox 360 in 480i mode, which renders the discussion moot. There's no problem sending 720p or 1080p at 60 fps (without partial fields or interlacing entering into the discusison).

There we go! jcmccorm has hit it! Almost. :)

I still take issue with the use of the word "frame" in reference to NTSC. NTSC has a fieldrate, it does not have a framerate. The original source has a framerate, which is invariably converted to 60 fields/sec regardless of the original source being 15, 24, 30, 60, 3, or 40bajillion frames per second. Yes, it takes two fields to build a full-height frame at 29.97hz, but that is irrelevant, as NTSC does not work in frames.

Here is the key point for everyone following along: Interlaced signals do not have a framerate. The original source has a framerate, and if displayed on a progressive monitor the deinterlacer needs to build frames out of the fields, but the interlaced signal itself does not have a framerate. Yes, that's true for 1080i too. :)

dub273 - Pasting the first six google results that agree with your misinformed search paramater doesn't make something true. I could search for "god buried dinosaur bones to confuse us" and post the first 6 links that agreed with that idea, but it wouldn't make it any truer than it was yesterday. :)

I'm not meaning to be mean or anything, but I still have not seen anything from you that shows me that you can cram 60 frame/sec material into your 30 frame/sec signal. I really do wish that you were right, even! I'm playing Dragon Quest VIII on my PS2 right now, and it would be really nice if it didn't run at 60 frames per second and was locked down at 30, like you have said NTSC is limited to. Losing the feathering on horizontal pans whenever I moved the camera around would be so awesome!

"And what backup have you "busted out" with, precisely?"

I'm pretty sure back at post #36 I used the very topical COD4 to walk us all through a 60 frame/sec source being converted into a 60 field/sec signal. An impossible feat on a video system that I have been told only hold 30s frames per second. :)

Or were you talking about links to gooogle hits? Funny thing about that is I can find references backing up my arguement on the exact same sites you linked to. Doesn't mean they're worth anything.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, dub. I just don't want anyone else reading along that isn't as familiar with NTSC to walk away thinking that interlaced signals work in "frames".

"Almost none of the users here will be using the Xbox 360 in 480i mode, which renders the discussion moot."

But they will at 1080i, and all of this talk of 480i holds true at 1080i as well. Same rules, more pixels.

Interesting thread. Here's my understanding but would love to learn exactly how this works since it sounds like everyone is saying the same thing (to me). I am not a broadcast engineer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express a couple of weeks ago.


hilarious

Thanks darklordjames, that makes perfect sense.

Why *do* they say NTSC is 29.97 frames/sec? It seems that it's not really based upon anything in practice except that putting two fields together as a frame would happen at a rate of 29.97 frames/sec, but the fields are different so it doesn't make much sense.

Cary

PS. And sorry for keeping this thread off topic, but the subject came up, it's interesting to me, and I want to make sure my understanding of it is correct.

I still take issue with the use of the word "frame" in reference to NTSC. NTSC has a fieldrate, it does not have a framerate.NTSC has both a field rate and a practical frame rate. To say that 480i is not 30 frames per second, as you did in your initial response, is inaccurate. Yes, it's 60 fields per second. But the fact remains that NTSC is also 29.97 frames per second.

Yes, it takes two fields to build a full-height frame at 29.97hz, but that is irrelevant, as NTSC does not work in frames.I reject this notion. Professional videographers and video editors don't work in fields. They (we) edit and assemble material by frames. Frames are, in fact, vital to the process. And NTSC runs at 29.97 frames per second.

dub273 - Pasting the first six google results that agree with your misinformed search paramater doesn't make something true.You're right, Googling something doesn't make it true... the fact that it's true makes it true. NTSC is 29.97 frames per second. That statement is entirely true and accurate. The subsequent breakdown of the display of the even and odd fields of the frame is also true. We're basically splitting the fine hairs over terminology, but NTSC is 29.97 frames per second.

I could search for "god buried dinosaur bones to confuse us" and post the first 6 links that agreed with that idea, but it wouldn't make it any truer than it was yesterday. :)Your argument only applies if God had formed the World Dinosaur Bone Burial Commission in 1947 and explicitly laid out the technical specifications for placement, frequency, and species of dinosaur bone burial and distributed it to paleontologists and held hearings in Congress and the U.N. to establish dinosaur bone burial standards. If events actually happened that way and if I were to Google it, I'd actually be passing along something that is more or less accurate.

Fortunately for us, the development of the NTSC format is more thoroughly documented than cuckoo-clock junk science. And the NTSC spec is 29.97 frames per second.

I'm not meaning to be mean or anything, but I still have not seen anything from you that shows me that you can cram 60 frame/sec material into your 30 frame/sec signal.You already know the answer. You are not locked to 30 temporal image elements just because your frame rate is 29.97 frames per second, you can attain the coveted 60. Each full frame is drawn twice, one pass for the odd fields and one pass for the even fields. 30 frames per second, through the magic of deinterlacing, becomes 60 half-frames per second. Et voila... 60fps material is still magical for the gamer, even at a "lowly" 29.97 frames per second.

I really do wish that you were right, even! I'm playing Dragon Quest VIII on my PS2 right now, and it would be really nice if it didn't run at 60 frames per second and was locked down at 30, like you have said NTSC is limited to.NTSC is 29.97 frames per second. And, as you said correctly, 59.94 fields per second. They are not mutually exclusive.

I'm pretty sure back at post #36 I used the very topical COD4 to walk us all through a 60 frame/sec source being converted into a 60 field/sec signal.Stuff I learned back in college before the existence of The Google.

Or were you talking about links to gooogle hits? Funny thing about that is I can find references backing up my arguement on the exact same sites you linked to.The only issue I have with anything you've said, really, is that there's nothing 30fps about a 480i signal, which is incorrect. NTSC is 29.97 frames per second.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, dub. I just don't want anyone else reading along that isn't as familiar with NTSC to walk away thinking that interlaced signals work in "frames".A common misconception is that frames are recorded and then split into fields, while in fact it is fields that are recorded and then combined into frames. (http://people.csail.mit.edu/tbuehler/video/ntsc.html)

Interlaced signals work using both fields and frames. They must.

And NTSC runs at 29.97 frames per second.

Pride is a bitch sometimes.

interesting stuff, really, but how about we get back to talking about teh haloz??

I think you two are really arguing the same thing.

NTSC is definitely 29.97 frames per second. It is also 59.94 fields per second.

On an interlaced display, you only ever get 29.97 frames per second and 59.94 fields per second. That's it. Same goes for 1080i ATSC.

On a progressive display, with adaptive de-interlacing, you can get 59.94 displayed frames per second out of a 59.94 field per second source. But half of the data in these frames is going to be interpolated. That is to say that half of it is going to actually be created by the television.

Also, cameras that record in 480i or 1080i definitely record in interlaced format. The CCDs that they use are only capable of interlaced output. So nothing is "thrown away," unlike when a 60fps, progressive game is output in an interlaced format.

Well, I tried Halo 3 again last night and after throwing grenades trying to aim and running when trying to zoom, I just started getting a headache trying to get my eyes to make the screen move faster and smoother. I'm starting to wish I never played a 60fps game.

I will have to agree, that I do like the vistas that H3 multilayer provides and how that plays into the differences between H3 and COD4 I like them both just wish halo was 60fps. Here to hoping:)

"Why *do* they say NTSC is 29.97 frames/sec?"

I would make the guess that it makes the most sense to always split sources at the odd field in the video broadcasting world. I would also guess that using "29.97 frames/sec" is more of a slang in that world than a specific belief or idea. Just as with any slang, some people take it to be absolutely serious and the truth. :) Additionally, it is far easier to wrap your head around the concept of frames than it is to wrap your mind around the idea of fields. Fields are freakin' weird!

"Your argument only applies if God had formed the World Dinosaur Bone Burial Commission in 1947 and explicitly laid out the technical specifications for placement, frequency, and species of dinosaur bone burial and distributed it to paleontologists and held hearings in Congress and the U.N. to establish dinosaur bone burial standards. If events actually happened that way and if I were to Google it, I'd actually be passing along something that is more or less accurate."

That is an awesome response! I congratulate you on that one! :)

"A common misconception is that frames are recorded and then split into fields, while in fact it is fields that are recorded and then combined into frames. (http://people.csail.mit.edu/tbuehler/video/ntsc.html)"

Did you read the paragraph above the one that you quoted? Let me paste it for you "Well, in a way, that was a lie. In fact, there is no such thing as a frame in NTSC video.". Like I said, the sources that you are using contradict even themselves! :) The only conclusion I have come to as to why, is my slang explanation above. Out here in the real world it's pretty obvious that there is no framerate to interlaced material.

Here, let's quote the Wiki definition of Frame Rate, since you like Wikis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
"Frame rate, or frame frequency, is the measurement of the frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency) (rate) at which an imaging device produces unique consecutive images called frames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_frame).Frame rate, or frame frequency, is the measurement of the frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency) (rate) at which an imaging device produces unique consecutive images called frames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_frame)."

Sounds "unique consecutive images" could be used to describe the unique fields coming in from a 60hz camcorder, meaning the frame rate of that signal would be 60. Or it could be the unique pair of fields out of 5 that make up the 3:2 of telecined film. The point being of course that the framerate is tied to the source, not the carrier signal.

"Also, cameras that record in 480i or 1080i definitely record in interlaced format. The CCDs that they use are only capable of interlaced output. So nothing is "thrown away," unlike when a 60fps, progressive game is output in an interlaced format."

That's all well and good, but interlaced video cameras are not the only place that we get 480i or 1080i material. You should also throw the word "most" in there as your second word. Making hard and fast statements about all interlaced cameras isn't a good idea. :) I'm sure someone out there made a camera with a 480p CCD that will capture in 480i mode, and I know for a fact that JVC made an early HDV camera with a 720p CCD that would capture in 480i mode.

"Well, I tried Halo 3 again last night and after throwing grenades trying to aim and running when trying to zoom, I just started getting a headache trying to get my eyes to make the screen move faster and smoother. I'm starting to wish I never played a 60fps game."

Go play a game that is slower paced for a while. Hop into Lost Oddysey or something. :) At the slower game pace you will rapidly forget about the 60fps of COD4. Human vision is amazingly adaptive like that!

Here, let's quote the Wiki definition of Frame Rate, since you like Wikis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
"Frame rate, or frame frequency, is the measurement of the frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency) (rate) at which an imaging device produces unique consecutive images called frames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_frame).Frame rate, or frame frequency, is the measurement of the frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency) (rate) at which an imaging device produces unique consecutive images called frames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_frame)."

Sounds "unique consecutive images" could be used to describe the unique fields coming in from a 60hz camcorder, meaning the frame rate of that signal would be 60. Or it could be the unique pair of fields out of 5 that make up the 3:2 of telecined film. The point being of course that the framerate is tied to the source, not the carrier signal.


Another interesting quote on the page:
The "frame rate" of interlaced systems is usually defined as the number of complete frames (pairs of fields) transmitted each second (25 or 30 in most broadcast systems). However, since a conventional television camera will scan the scene again for each field, in many circumstances it may be useful to think of the frame rate as being equal to the field rate.

Guess you are both right, according to the Wiki that you both like to quote. ;)

Shape, that is exactly what I have been saying all along! The framerate is tied to the source, in this case a video camera, not to the carrier signal! :)

That is an awesome response! I congratulate you on that one! :)You are too kind. ;)

Did you read the paragraph above the one that you quoted?In fact I did. I almost put it in the original message, but I let it slip, in part to see if you'd actually follow the link. Which you did (and I thank you for giving me that courtesy). But the resultant quote is still "in a way, that was a lie." Which means that, in a way, it is also true. It still doesn't invalidate the well-worn, well-established and well-documented fact that the NTSC standard is, was, and shall be remembered as 29.97 frames per second.

Sounds "unique consecutive images" could be used to describe the unique fields coming in from a 60hz camcorder, meaning the frame rate of that signal would be 60.Those are useful links. I'm completely prepared to accept the various definitions that state that every 1/60 of a second, we get a shiny and unique helping of information that keeps the video a-rollin' and makes for happy persistence of vision. I'm much less prepared to start using the terms "fields" and "frames" interchangeably.

dub - This sounds like an agreeable place to put this one to bed. :) We've both made our arguements, and anything else would just be repeating ourselves. I figure we can let the on-lookers take from this what they will, and walk away in peace.

I also realize that I can be a bit blunt, and I hope that you take no offense by it. It's been fun! :)

dub - This sounds like an agreeable place to put this one to bed. :)Well said. Thank you for keeping me honest.

COD4 looks like a much more beautiful game IMO because of the framerate. If Halo3 was 60fps I have no doubt it wold look better than COD4, but as it stands, COD4 pplays and looks better becasue of it simly because it looks more realistic and fluid as far as motion goes for me. That was actually the selling point for me, the fluid motion just grabbed me in a way that no other console FPS did.

60 fps would be horrible for Halo.

Pretty sure Halo 1 ran at 60 fps.

Also Halo 3 runs at a lower res than CoD4, you guys have it backwards.

What did they do to Halo? (http://www.gamegrep.com/news/5430-halo_3_runs_640p_native_resolution/)

1138x640 is a lower resolution than 1024x600? Huh. I didn't realize that! Tomorrow is also in the past, and apples are larger than tigers, right?

CoD4 runs at 720p duncecap.

OK nevermind I just looked it up and it is in fact running at 600p. Morons had frames to spare and still dropped the resolution. That sucks. Good thing the 8800gt in my C2D rig runs the game at 1050p well over 60fps. Ahh, the power of next-gen.

Good thing you turned to name calling before you looked it up! I never would have known that I am a "duncecap" otherwise.

Well, instead of just informing me that CoD4 runs at 600p you resorted to a lame attempt at humor on my expense. That in fact does make you a "duncecap".

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/57/87/23398757.jpg

Dub said that COD4 runs at 600p back at post 20 of this very thread, and I said it at post 36 of this same thread. If you had actually read what you were replying to instead of just assuming that we are all wrong, then you would have known that COD4 is 1024x600 and avoided this embarassing little incident.

If you aren't going to read a thread, then don't reply to it.

I doubt he is really all that embarrassed. And tbh you were the one that tried to blow him up.

Are you always such a condescending jerk to people when they make mistakes darklordjames? You must think you know everything.:rolleyes:

Pretty sure Halo 1 ran at 60 fps.

Nope, the console versions of all the Halo games are capped at 30fps. The first two just don't drop to 20fps nearly as much as Halo 3 does.

You're right, I'm not embarrassed. I should have checked to make sure I was correct before my 1st post though. Googled in .00053 seconds. I just assumed they would not lower the res when they had 60fps. The only possible reasons I can think of why they would do that is to take advantage of the edram, or they couldn't hit their target 60fps at 720p. I think they would have sold the same amount of games either way so I don't really understand the action. Also Halo3 gfx look worse to me so I figured it was because of resolution, but now I think it has more to do with the texture filtering(lack of).

Halo1 seemed so smooth to me. Although coming from dreamcast/ps2 may have played a factor.